Russia’s effort to encircle Ukraine with more than 150,000 troops has been accompanied by a shift in its information operations, including a noted increase in ongoing campaigns targeting audiences in the United States, according to a senior U.S. Homeland Security official.

The onslaught of Kremlin-linked influence operations by itself is not new. U.S. intelligence officials and the Department of Homeland Security have warned for months of sustained Russian efforts to sow discord with disinformation on a range of subjects, from the 2020 U.S. presidential elections to the coronavirus.

But over the past few weeks, as intelligence streamed in that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be closer to launching an invasion into Ukraine, the tone and tenor of the influence campaigns targeting U.S. audiences began to evolve.

There has been “an increase in the promotion of narratives trying to lay the blame for the Ukraine crisis and the potential escalation in that conflict at the feet of the U.S.,” said John Cohen, the senior official performing the duties of the undersecretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS. “Trying to shift blame away from Russia’s efforts.”

Officials also fear that Russian rhetoric about Ukraine, when mixed with information designed to anger and even incite segments of American society, could make the threat landscape in the U.S. that much more dangerous.

“The escalated tensions between Russia and Ukraine have the potential to exacerbate the threat environment here at home, particularly as it relates to the use by Russia of disinformation campaigns and active measure techniques,” Cohen said Tuesday during a virtual forum.

Homeland Security officials earlier this month issued an updated National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning that an increasingly volatile, unpredictable and complex threat environment necessitated keeping the U.S. in a heightened state of alert against terror attacks.

The updated bulletin also warned that much of the information environment, including social media, was being targeted by “malign foreign powers” seeking to amplify any and all divisions in American society.

Of the growing number of foreign powers seeking to manipulate the online environment, Russia has been especially active. Former intelligence officials and analysts told VOA that even before the 2020 election, Moscow was finding ways to ingratiate a stable of influence peddlers to U.S. audiences on the far right and the far left.

More recently, an assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence obtained by Yahoo News concluded the Kremlin is providing “indirect and passive support” to U.S. groups on the far right, described by U.S. officials as racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, or RMVEs.

“We lack indications of Russian Government direct support — such as financing, material support, training or guidance,” the ODNI assessment said. “However, Russian online influence operations amplify politically divisive issues that probably contribute to RMVE radicalization and recruitment.”

The ODNI report further warned that some Russian paramilitary groups have tried to recruit Western extremists.

“We have not seen a significant amount of plane travel at this point, but it’s obviously something we look at,” DHS’ Cohen said Tuesday, though he warned U.S. officials are trying to fight back.

“We have shared intelligence information with state and locals. We are making sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect key information infrastructures, particularly those having to do with critical infrastructure,” he said. “And we are continuing to think through strategies to counteract disinformation campaigns promoted by Russia.”

Pushing back against Russian disinformation and influence operations can be difficult because “success is measured by volume and relentlessness,” said John Sipher, a 28-year veteran of the CIA who once ran the spy agency’s Russia operations.

“They are no longer trying to push a cohesive narrative,” Sipher told VOA. “(Russia is) just trying to use a firehose to spread lies, disinformation and confusion in an effort to make it impossible to pick out truth from the huge pile of nonsense.”

 
…

your ad here

The families of nine victims of a massacre at an elementary school nearly ten years ago in the northeastern U.S. state of Connecticut reached a $73 million settlement Tuesday in a lawsuit against Remington Arms, the maker of the rifle used in the mass killing.

The settlement is a rare instance of a U.S. gunmaker paying damages for bloodshed arising from the criminal use of a firearm.

Twenty first grade students and six educators were killed on December 12, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut by Adam Lanza, who repeatedly fired a Remington semi-automatic rifle as he made his way through the school.

The families and a survivor of the massacre sued Remington in 2015, maintaining the company should have never sold such a dangerous military-style weapon to the public. They also said they are focused on preventing other mass shootings.

“Today is not about honoring our son Benjamin. Today is about how and why Ben died,” said Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the massacre. “Our legal system has given us some justice today, but David and I will never have true justice. True justice would be our fifteen-year-old healthy and here with us.”

The civil lawsuit in Waterbury Superior Court focused on how the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle was marketed, maintaining Remington singled out younger, at-risk males in marketing and in product placements in violent video games.

Remington did not immediately comment on the settlement but the gunmaker had argued there was no evidence that its marketing of the rifle was linked to the killings.

The gun manufacturer also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that grants broad immunity to the gun sector. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled, however, that Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle.

Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

The gunmaker offered to pay the plaintiffs nearly $33 million in July. In 2018, Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and emerged from it later that year under the control of its creditors. The company filed for bankruptcy again in July 2020 after more retailers restricted gun sales after other school shootings in the U.S.

The plaintiffs said four insurers for Remington agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million.

“This victory should serve as a wake-up call not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up,” said Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “For the gun industry, it’s time to stop recklessly marketing all guns to all people for all uses and instead ask how marketing can lower risk rather than court it.”

The rifle used by Lanza, who was 20 years old at the time of the shootings, was legally owned by his mother. He used to the rifle to kill his mother at their Newtown home before committing the mass shooting at the school. Lanza killed himself with a handgun as police arrived.

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters.
…

your ad here

After nearly 20 years of war, the U.S. and its allies left Afghanistan last August, helping to evacuate more than 130,000 Afghans in the chaotic last weeks in Kabul. Many of those Afghans hoped for a life in the U.S. 

The U.S. offers few primary avenues for Afghans seeking entry. One is a decade-old special immigrant visa program for military interpreters and others who worked on government-funded contracts. Another is a refugee admission program run by the State Department in conjunction with other agencies. A third path is humanitarian parole. 

Humanitarian parole is special permission given to those hoping to enter the United States under emergency circumstances. Though it does not automatically lead to permanent residency, “parolees” can apply for legal status—either through the asylum process or other forms of sponsorship, if available—once they’re in the U.S.

The Biden administration received more than 40,000 requests for humanitarian parole for Afghan nationals outside the U.S. So far 160 cases have been conditionally approved, per data sent to VOA by U.S. immigration officials. 

An additional 930 cases have been denied, leaving thousands of Afghans who are seeking temporary entry into the U.S. stuck in Afghanistan and other countries. 

Stringent criteria 

Immigration attorney Mahsa Khanbabai, an elected director of the board of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and co-chair of AILA’s Afghan task force, said part of the problem is how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decides to whom they are going to give humanitarian parole. 

“They have extremely stringent criteria, which is immensely problematic and upsetting for a lot of people because we expected the government to use … its broad discretion to grant parole,” Khanbabai told VOA. “… There’s an emergency situation here. There’s some humanitarian considerations. Let’s help these people out.” 

For many at-risk Afghan civilians with no direct ties to the U.S. military or government, humanitarian parole is the only option to reach safety in the United States and reunite with family members. 

“A great example is women judges and prosecutors,” Khanbabai said. “They were actually trained by U.S. lawyers … but they never worked for the U.S. government. They worked for the Afghan government. They don’t qualify for [a special immigrant visa]. … So humanitarian parole is really their next best option, and that’s one reason why we advocate so hard for [it].” 

A spokesperson for USCIS told VOA that in a typical year, the agency receives fewer than 2,000 requests for humanitarian parole from all nationalities. Of those requests, about 500 to 700 are approved. There are numerous reasons for rejection, but most often it’s because the applicant could not prove they were in an emergency situation. 

Additionally, the spokesperson said, the U.S. government has increased the number of officers working on parole cases to assist with the surge in requests and improve processing times. 

But the official said humanitarian parole is not intended to replace the refugee processing channels, such as the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which is the typical pathway for individuals outside of the United States who have fled their country of origin and are seeking protection. 

“USCIS reviews the specific facts of each case to determine if there is a distinct, well-documented reason to approve humanitarian parole for an individual,” the spokesperson said. 

They do, however, recognize the U.S. refugee program is not always an option. 

“In some limited circumstances, protection needs are so urgent that obtaining protection via the USRAP is not a realistic option. This, along with other, multiple factors are taken into consideration when USCIS assesses whether urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit parole warrants a favorable exercise of discretion,” USCIS spokesperson said. 

Among the criteria to be considered for parole, an applicant is usually an immediate family member of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. lawful permanent resident. Or was a formally employed staff member in the U.S. Embassy in Kabul or an immediate family member of a locally employed staff member. 

It also requires an application fee of $575. 

VOA spoke with Noori, a former diversity visa winner living in a camp in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, who said he is now trying to get a visa to go to Germany or Canada with his family. For now, he has no hope they will live in the U.S. because they cannot afford the fee. 

“We have no money for humanitarian parole,” he wrote in a text message. Noori, like many Afghans, uses only one name. 

‘Imminent severe harm’ 

In November, USCIS added to the list of criteria for Afghan applicants and hosted a webinar to explain to attorneys that humanitarian parole is normally given only if the applicant shows evidence of “imminent severe harm.” 

But, as Khanbabai said, it is difficult for the applicants to meet the “imminent severe harm” bar. 

“They’re saying that, ‘You haven’t proven to us that there’s individualized threat or harm.’ So, [the U.S. government] essentially made the standard almost more difficult than an asylum case. … Basically ‘Where’s your letter from the Taliban saying that they want you to report to their offices because of the XYZ activities you engaged in,'” she said. 

In January, 15 senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas expressing concern over the reported high denial rates for Afghans seeking humanitarian parole into the United States. 

“While we have always maintained that proper vetting is an essential part of the humanitarian parole process, we are greatly concerned that the Administration is holding Afghan nationals seeking humanitarian parole to an unreasonably high standard, creating barriers to safe haven in the United States,” the senators, all Democrats, wrote. 

 
…

your ad here

The United States said Monday a suspension of avocado imports from Mexico will remain in place until the security of U.S. agricultural inspectors can be guaranteed.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services halted operations in Mexico’s Michoacan state on Saturday after an inspector received a threatening message. 

“The suspension will remain in place for as long as necessary to ensure the appropriate actions are taken, to secure the safety of APHIS personnel working in Mexico,” said a USDA statement Monday. 

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said his government is examining the situation, and suggested Monday there was a political motivation behind the suspension.

“In all of this there are also a lot of political interests and political interests, there is competition; they don’t want Mexican avocados to get into the United States, right, because it would rule in the United States because of its quality,” he said. 

Michoacan is Mexico’s top avocado producer and has dealt with gangs that target avocado and lime growers.

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Reuters. 
…

your ad here

From a thrilling late touchdown drive that gave the Rams a 23-20 win over the Bengals, to Eminem taking a knee and Meadow Soprano driving an electric Chevy, here are the highlights from Sunday’s Super Bowl 56. 

How the Rams won the Super Bowl 

Down 20-16, the Rams went on a 15-play drive capped by Matthew Stafford’s 1-yard touchdown pass to Super Bowl MVP Cooper Kupp for the go-ahead score with 1:25 left. 

Kupp’s touchdown catch came after three costly penalties on the Bengals’ defense.  

After both teams were flagged only twice in the first 58 minutes, the Bengals were called for penalties on three consecutive plays.  

Super Bowl ads mixed celebrities and nostalgia 

Advertisers shelled out up to $7 million for 30-second spots during the Super Bowl, and they used their time to try to entertain with humor, star power and nostalgia.  

T-Mobile reunited Scrubs stars Zach Braff and Donald Faison, while Verizon recreated the 1996 movie The Cable Guy to tout its high-speed 5G network. 

And Chevrolet recreated the opening sequence to The Sopranos to tout its all-electric Chevy Silverado. 

This time, however, Jamie-Lynn Sigler, who played Meadow Soprano on the show that ran from 1999 to 2007, is in the driver’s seat instead of the Sopranos patriarch played by the late James Gandolfini. 

An epic and edgy Super Bowl halftime show 

50 Cent made a surprise upside-down entrance at the Super Bowl halftime show, and Eminem dramatically took a knee.  

Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, Eminem and Kendrick Lamar spit a fiery medley of their hits. 

As his rendition of “Lose Yourself” ended, Eminem took a knee and held his head in his hand in apparent tribute to former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality during the 2016 season.  

The NFL denied reports that it was attempting to stop Eminem from making the gesture.  

The pregame national anthem 

Mickey Guyton told The Associated Press this week that she’d earned the nickname “Quickie Mickey” for singing The Star Spangled Banner in a tight 1:30. She sang it in about 1:50 Sunday, 15 seconds over the projected mark of 1:35 set by oddsmakers. 

Who else performed at the Super Bowl pregame? 

About 40 minutes before kickoff, the Rams and Bengals lined the end zones and looked up at the big screen while outside, next to SoFi Stadium’s lake, gospel duo Mary Mary and the LA Phil’s Youth Orchestra Los Angeles performed Lift Every Voice and Sing, a song that’s known as the unofficial Black national anthem.  

Singer Jhené Aiko brought a novel combination of R&B and harp to her rendition of America the Beautiful.  

And The Rock grabbed a mic on the field and put on his old wrestling persona to introduce the teams just before kickoff, in the style of an announcer before a big fight.  

 
…

your ad here